Yes, I read what you are being snarky about. It seems to me that what you have done is said "What a load of crap" without actually adding any value. What you haven't done is provide a clear, well-thought out contrary point of view.

I would be interested in reading an incisive, constructive reply, but if all you're going to do is criticize without being informative or constructive, then I guess you really are somewhat like a eunuch in a harem.

So here, PG wrote this (and you quoted it):

    "Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical
    stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations
    of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand
    (e.g. Hegel).

    It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but
    more as a kind of accident report than to teach you
    anything useful."

So he's saying that the study of philosophy doesn't really teach you anything useful, and he says broadly why. You seem to take exception to this, but you don't say why. You don't say what it is that developers, or others, can gain from studying philosophy. You don't provide a counter-argument, or any kind of alternative viewpoint. You simply declare him to be pompous.

That seems unconstructive to me.

So returning to your comment:

    Did you read what I'm criticizing?

Yes, I did.

    You mustn't have if you're saying I'm
    "unable to do it myself".

That's an odd deduction, and I don't see how you came to the conclusion. You have provided zero evidence of anything except the fact of your disagreement. I would like to see a well-constructed counter-argument.

    How is this quote any more coherent or
    well-structured or less snarky than my
    comment was?

Perhaps it isn't, but it was in the context of the preceeding paragraph which asked for a more complete reply, rather than a snarky dismissal.

Will you offer one? I am genuinely interested to see the alternate point of view explained clearly and well.